[Masthead] Overcast ~ 66°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 48°F
Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2017

New mileage rules will likely prove costly

Posted Friday, April 2, 2010, at 10:16 AM

Looks like the Obama administration (a/k/a Government Motors) is bent and determined to force us truck-loving Americans into small cars -- no matter what the cost.

New federal rules mandate a 35.5 mpg average by 2016.

The government proudly proclaims that although the plans will increase the cost of new cars by over $900 each, we'll save over $3,000 over the lives of those vehicles due to better gas mileage.

Yeah, right.

What about the Big Oil factor? If consumption falls -- meaning less gasoline sold at the pump -- gas prices rise to keep Big Oil's profit levels up. And about that $3,000 saved: Few people keep a vehicle through its entire lifespan.

GM and Ford will be pushing small, turbocharged engines by the end of this year. Hopefully those powerplants will get the job done. Those of us who can remember some of the poorly-engineered, weak engines from the 1970s and 1980s can only hope that we aren't going back to cars too slow to get out of their own way. And I'm not talking about spinning out from intersections like a race driver, but simply engines with enough power to get away quickly from, for example, a drunk driver sliding in your direction -- or that aren't straining under normal acceleration with the A/C on in summer's heat.

Conserving natural resources is a good move. Vehicles certainly use their share of resources. But onerous rules forced on the public are another example of a government that's beginning to stretch its regulatory power too far.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

You know "It's for your own good" Quite honestly I am about sick of them telling me what is for my own good. Give them an inch and they take a mile that's what the government has always done.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 10:23 AM

Exactly Diantan . . . our government hasn't proven to me yet that they are smarter than me and know what is best for me and not them. They want to tell me what to eat, how to live, and what to drive. How about they do what I tell them since I am paying their salary!

It is really sad.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 10:37 AM

I wonder if the Founders of this great nation ever thought they would get involved in telling people what horses to own, for their own good of course.

These horses eat too much grass or pass too much gas. I can see a great political slogan in there, but this is a family blog so......

-- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 1:46 PM

Actually, I really don't have a problem with it.

1) It's a national security issue

2) The new mileage requirements are for the the entire line of vehicles for a manufacturer. If they make a hybrid that gets 50mpg they can still make a truck that gets 20 and still be within guidelines. On balance it will reduce the amount used.

3) It's a national security issue

Now the EPA, that's a whole different issue. SCOTUS has given the EPA Waaaayyyyy too much latitude in regulating carbon emissions. This has huge potential for abuse. I suspect that the new congress (which may very well be republican after January) will seek to limit the EPA budget substantially in the next FY.

As far as the cars themselves, I'm optimistic (as a child of the 70's myself I can remember exactly what David is talking about). I drive a 4 cylinder saturn sky (hey it's a collectible now!!) turbo. Gets 28 on the highway and will blow the doors off most everything on the road. Well at least that's what I've been told, not that I've ever broken the speed limit or anything :)

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 9:00 PM

I really have a problem with it because it us a mandate from the Obama factor. There are far bigger issues the will effect national security than the size of a car. I wonder when the obomites will decide it is better not to allow big tractors .... Outonthefarm

-- Posted by outonthefarm on Sat, Apr 3, 2010, at 1:45 PM

President John Adams once said, "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two are a law firm, and three or more become a Congress." With the approval rating of the current congressional gaggle hovering somewhere in the single digits, one has to ask: Can't we do better than this for $174,000 a year and the best benefits package in America? It takes one's breath away to see the blatant disregard so many of our senators and representatives have for the very Constitution they have sworn to defend.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Tue, Apr 6, 2010, at 10:45 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.